This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We are talking about a nation with an intelligence agency that sexually trafficked children in order to gather dirt on western leaders and celebrities. Why wouldn’t they murder some goy kids to further their aims?
Welcome back! Let's see, you were last temp-banned for low-effort boo-outgroup posting a year ago... but instead of taking three days off, you disappeared for a year. It took you less than a week of posting to get my attention this time.
You're banned for a week, but you can expect that to escalate sharply if you continue posting like this.
More options
Context Copy link
Other than the fact that intelligence agencies of all kinds were obviously aware of Epstein, the only actual ‘evidence’ that Mossad was involved is that Epstein himself bragged about being a Mossad secret agent. Given he was a notorious compulsive liar, I question the extent to which we can take that seriously.
Didn't he have a co-conspirator who had actually been part of the Mossad?
More options
Context Copy link
There was also the accusation from another Ben Menashe worked for Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate from 1977 to 1987. accused directly of Epstein being Mossad. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12926465/jeffrey-epstein-list-friendship-israeli-prime-minister-ehud-barak.html Laura Goldman, Epstein's friend also thought that Ghislane father and her daughter were Mossad agents https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7761169/Jeffrey-Epstein-book-claims-Ghislaine-Maxwell-Mossad-spies.html
The suspicion of Robert Maxwell being Mossad includes plenty more of course. Here is a 2002 hebrew book from Amazon about Robert Maxwell, Israel's superspy. https://www.amazon.com/-/he/Martin-Dillon/dp/0786710780
There is also that "he was of intelligence", and the sweetheart deal.
One of the backers of Epstein was the Jewish billionaire Les Wexner of Victoria Secret who was also one of the two founders of the MEGA group, a group of wealthy Jews pushing "jewish" issues. Probably it self a Mossad front or related group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Wexner
So it is just not true at all that the only reason to think Epstein is Mossad is because Epstein said so.
Like another thing you have argued in the past that Epstein just killed himself, which is convenient as it helps end the conversation and not look at who this network really is, which also doesn't make sense, since security cameras were off and all sorts of coincidences that don't just happen at the time Epstein was killed.
You are just blatantly wrong when making such strong claims about this not being Mossad. And it is plausible you are denying this because you want to help cover up for Mossad.
My experience when reading those among the Jews who I consider compulsive liars is that they are also braggarts to an extend. These aren't people who succeed by an ability to act in a manner that would never lead reasonable, moral, interested parties in uncovering the truth, but by using all the dark arts.
Obfuscate with bullshit and misdirecting, while friends up top help cover the issue up and censor inconvenient facts is part of the way to get away with crimes. Promote gratuitous insults and try to ridicule those those willing to think that 1 +1 = 2, and what smells and quacks like a Mossad or otherwise Jewish network operation, is in fact just that. Implicate enough people through blackmail as in the Epstein case. Try to make it a taboo to oppose blatantly criminal, and immoral acts and promote a mentality both within the Jewish community and outside of it, of people acting as collosal racist hypocritical extremists, that they side with the most depraved behavior, under a misplaced sympathy towards Jews. So moral corruption of nodes of society, and getting the corrupt to help cover such things and help the people behind Epstein get away with it by what they say, and what they don't say. Getting people to support whatever absurdity if it will be perceived as pro Jewish.
Criminals who rape children are not some sort of geniuses who wouldn't admit ever what they were doing. And it is also pretty fucking obvious that Epstein crew is a Mossad operation. Like Italian Mafia members sometimes reveal themselves, Jewish criminals are going to reveal information. As well of course, to be fair, we have people (like with other people involved with such activites) people involved with Israeli intelligence who have been willing to reveal some of what is behind the curtain and expose what Mossad is up to.
And you will of course claim that there is nothing to see here. There are people who both support such conspiracies and want people to not take them seriously and to ridicule those who do and have an interest in creating the perception of everything being imperceptible. In the real world however, we don't live in the darkness where such things can not be perceived at all and are unknowable.
The important thing to happen isn't just knowledge which itself is necessary but obviously we need to see shutting down such criminal networks down and to go after parties like Lauder and others involved, or credibly suspected to be such. Suspicions and acting on them, are a good thing and would have saved plenty of people from monsters like Epstein and his associates and handlers. Indeed, we do need both arrests and more investigations. One help bring the other, if implicated parties like mobsters, everyone involved is facing entire life in prison for being part of a criminal organization, or if groups like MEGA are themselves declared parts of a criminal organization, then you could have people singing to reduce the number of years they spent behind bar. More surveillance and putting in what should be suspected to be Mossad front, double agents working to bring them down (including in addition to non Jews, possibly some honorable Jews, who will try to take down the evil ones, in addition to those flipped due to not wanting to spend life in prison).
Blackmailing American politicians to change policy for example, could even expand to qualify the activities of groups throwing millions around to character assassinate politicians for not putting foreign interests above their own nation's , and furthermore it should be investigated if not only as we know ADL and AIPAC communicate and coordinate but whether such organizations are under communication and converge with agenda of people who blackmail politicians with criminal activity like the Epstein crew. These powerful Jewish NGOs have become a state within a state, at the same time Epstein types get away with blackmailing politicians, and the issue is stopped before going after the handlers. It is long time for this societal malaise to be shut down.
Alas, this mafia, is now more connected with the institutions that should be trying to stop them than the Italian mafia (which even tried its own version of the anti defamation league for Italians) was when it started getting destroyed in the 90s especially. Still there are things that could be done if one is interested in justice and isn't satisfied with the "nothing to see here and only an idiot would think otherwise!" routine.
I don't know that being accused of being a Mossad agent is insulting in itself, but paired with accusations that it's in service to covering up child abuse and blackmail and various other conspiracies, you need to bring some evidence for such inflammatory claims (and "it is plausible that" is clearly weasel-wording and not sufficient).
You can grind your axe against Jews, you can insist Epstein was a Mossad operation, whatever. But don't make it personal just because someone's not buying what you are selling.
More options
Context Copy link
A notorious liar, fantasist and fraudster who runs a ‘private intelligence’ company predicated on ripping off wealthy foreigners by touting his connections to Israeli and US intelligence lying about hidden information only he, supposedly, has about Israeli and US intelligence? Say it ain’t so. Ben-Menashe’s entire continued existence depends on enough fake narrative-making to continue to persuade foreigners that he’s well-connected because of 10-year stint in Israeli intelligence almost 40 years ago, where his one claim to fame was being exposed to Iran-Contra not because he was an elite operative, but because he was a Persian speaker who translated the documents.
Epstein’s entire story about being a big-time arms trader and close to Mossad in the early 80s after being fired from Bear was a fantasy concocted to make his persona during the Towers Financial scheme era more interesting and to provide cover for the fact that he was essentially Wexner’s (whose alleged uh confirmed bachelor status is more evidenced than almost anything else in the Epstein narrative) rentboy during this era. Practically nobody involved in the London arms market during the Khashoggi era has any recollection of him, he certainly wasn’t a major player and certainly wasn’t well-connected.
Maxwell, of course, was close to Mossad. This fact was well-known and reported upon openly in the British and foreign press at the time, because he was considered a hero in Israel for having brokered weapons shipments during one of the early Arab-Israeli wars. It is unclear, however, that Maxwell ever even met Epstein, let alone that they were involved (interesting when countless people from that era of the business in London are still alive) beyond the faintest hearsay. Some people have claimed that they met in New York or London, or once, and yet nobody can ever actually attest to it, or produce a photograph of it, or recount one occasion where it happened.
And nobody in Mossad, which has tons of discontented leakers willing to speak to the press, has discussed intelligence Epstein’s blackmail operations supposedly produced. Given a substantial majority of those Epstein cavorted with were either powerless (like Prince Andrew) or Jewish, the objective of this supposed blackmail operation for Mossad is not even clear. Was this a dastardly scheme to blackmail Jewish billionaires into… supporting Israel? Certainly one can’t imagine them doing so otherwise.
Epstein conspiracies are mostly just people who are so trusting and naive that they can’t believe that “society”™️ would let someone get away with this. Unfortunately, it would, and it still does all the time for people much less wealthy and interesting than Epstein.
A nice tale. They are all just making these up. Not relevant that Maxwell was Israel superspy and his daughter is involved in the same business but somehow not for the same side. The Jewich chauvinists attracted to the whole project are just a coincidence. So are the constant visits of Ehud Barak, Israel ex prime minister with myriad of visits. https://www.timesofisrael.com/ehud-barak-met-with-jeffrey-epstein-dozens-of-times-flew-on-private-plane-report/
You are just so incurious about why exactly Epstein was collecting the evidence of politicians raping children.
Sorry, but neither your tale in diminishing the evidence is convincing, nor do I buy your intentions in telling it at face value. Especially since you previously pretended that those evidence didn't exist but now you are aware of Ben Menashe and ready to dismiss him. And as I now added the Ehud Barak issue, obviously this was far from exhaustive.
A Mossad blackmail operation, as part of a facet of this intlligence operation, is what fits the evidence and the testimonies.
And what was this very Jewish operation of people like Ghislane out to do then but obviously to collect blackmail. Or are you disputing the tapes now? Which somehow haven't been used to reveal the clients.
Other than the "nothing to see here" black hole, that is not naive, something worse, you really aren't serious here but engaging in desperatly trying to shut down this issue, this kind of naivety is not natural, rare can a person manage to combine an ability to not notice such important issues (like tapes) and make such strong claims.
Why were they including other Jews in the operation? Probably because like Epstein some of them were perverts, as a reward for loyalty, like the super jewish chauvinist and Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz, accused of rape by victims of this network. Some like Barak were probably there for the intelligence gathering and to coordinate it, and not to make direct use of Epstein's "products".
However, I don't see why they wouldn't implicate Jews too, to get them to also doubly work for such causes. Or to let them know that if they sing, they are going to get exposed. Not only blackmail but Jews like Maxwell or Epstein end up getting killed too by Mossad. Do you have an answer other than nothing to see here? Why were they apparently blackmailing Jews. Why so many Jews involved has an obvious answer of some of them willing to work along with it. Or do you deny that as is the tendency in such issue to deny facts as conspiracy theories? Because the blackmailing of Jews by Jews in the Epstein case is a fact. And the backing of Epstein by another pro Israel Jewich chauvinist in Wexner who created a group of Jewish billionaires in MEGA group was also a fact.
Other than obfuscation and throwing Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, are you interested like OJ about the real perpetrators and who is actually behind the Epstein (and Maxwell) issue? I guess we should stop asking questions and just end the discussion at "it just happens" and "not Mossad".
The real interesting question is whether state within a state Jewish NGOs in general are interconnected, and have any Mossad ties. There is a reason people like Epstein were allowed to operate and it isn't that "it is just normal in a society" where nothing can be done, but that broader network which is in operation, until it is brought down.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I get that it's hard to have a productive conversation based on nothing but speculation, but I feel that the Rat / Internet Atheist habit of "where's the evidence, bro" needs to die, or take a severe beating at least. There are "boring" orgs, that are relatively accessible to the public, which do goofy clandestine stuff every once in a while, and when we find out, it's often by dumb luck. What kind of evidence do you expect the public to have regarding Mossad?
- "You have no evidence for that!", he said standing in front of a stack of burning papers...
The claims for evidence are always attempts to force the burden of proof onto the claimant, which is normally a good thing. However modern internet discourse allows for extensive poisoning of the wells, so by forcing a source to be provided it becomes an orthogonal attack: by providing a source you have activated my trap card of categorical deniability.
There is no source so pure that it will be above reproach, so by providing a source to be arbitrarily torn down the argument is in fact further advanced: I have proven you are a chud by the fact that your source is the right wing rag Time magazine.
Facts do not matter for debatebros intent on using 'SOURCE?!?!' as an argument. Memory holing, source poisoning or other means of denying reality are tools extensively employed to maintain ones moral position.
Right wingers will admit that they do not like trans people and are working on legislation to ban transgender ideologies, left wingers will scream endlessly that there is no such pushing of trans ideologies in schools and evade/attack if evidence is provided.
This breaks down when the source provided is ones ownself, so thats where Epsteins claims of being a mossad agent are as spurious as Logan Pauls claim that he was buildings a crypto project or Musks claims that he is a Real Man who can stand up to the jewish weenie Zuckerberg - the only proof of their claim is their own words, so the motivations for providing a source must itself be considered. Source poisoning is a tactic used by really bad actors and ignoring the poison is also a bad action.
(Disclaimer: this is not a counter-argument, or even a disagreement, though it may sound like one. Maybe a tangential diatribe. Ahem.)
I can sympathize with this perspective, but only to a degree, as I feel it ignores that sources can be evaluated on various factors for credibility to support a claim, and the basis of these are appropriate grounds of conversation/debate such that 'source, please' is a relevant and reasonable thing.
Source credibility matters, and it can come from many observable factors that don't need mind-reading. These can be their consistency over time (do they have an established bias), their willingness to issue retractions and corrections (i.e. how likely are they to stand behind a lie if challenged, versus correcting a mistake), their self-interests in taking a position (does a claim inflate or decrease their social standing at the time it is made), and so on.
(This is one of the reasons that Epstein's claims are weaker than they might otherwise be, because he had a history of lying in favor of himself, and the specific claim itself could be self-benefiting, both before and after he got into serious scrutiny. Beforehand it could buff his prestige and imply he had powerful friends to help him get away with things so best not challenge him, and afterwards it could be used to deflect blame and responsibility away from himself. Note that these interests are valid whether the connection is true or not.)
The issue with 'providing sources is a waste of time because it's a trap card' is that, well, many sources most commonly used are indeed bad, and their usage is often used also bad. Time Magazine is not immune from political bias or propaganda, and using a citation in the form of an appeal to authority is double-bad both because of the fallacious form of the argument, and that the argument ignores why the source could be doubted. Pointing out either of these can be true and relevant, and also dismissed as 'poisoning the source.' The accusation itself is a means to counter an accuasion that would undermine the argument if true, thus letting the argument remain stronger than if the challenge went unchallenged.
The solution here isn't to disclaim sources entirely, but to use- and expect them to be used- in a more measured faction. But that measured faction goes back to the credibility of the source, as how far a source can be taken is going to vary significantly depending on context.
(Which I don't think you'd disagree with in general, but I wanted to write down those thoughts.)
I am in broad agreement. My specific inciting reason for my disjointed rant was the last line of @ArjinFerman post, about the burning books. In reasoned debate and discussion source provision is indeed a standard we should all abide by, but source poisoning is a tactic so regularly yet inconsistently applied that the calls for a source are warning signs of bad-faith poisoners readying their needles instead of honest requests for verification.
Appeal to authority is indeed a logical fallacy, but explicating the objection to a source is never framed in that way. Instead the arguers aim to pull off a heads I win tails you lose, for no source means no proof and a source means proof of your right wing bias. In public forums, requests for sources are not attempts at furthering an argument or discussion, they are performative kayfabe to pretend at decorum while castigating the other side.
This can of course be said of most public facing forums and indeed institutions as a whole, with mindshare capture being the meta of discourse shaping. I wish we could find a way to arbitrate and give concrete value to facts and opinions shared, but the upvote is just inconsequential goodboypoints.
Btw pls updoot for visibility, thank
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, I’m not saying the public is going to know. I’m saying that we do know that Epstein lied about a huge number of things, and that the source of the Mossad rumors (if you look into them) is typically people who were told by Epstein himself (who notoriously wanted to be an international man of mystery) that he was a secret agent and intelligence broker for Mossad.
More options
Context Copy link
Surely you're not arguing that the alternative is to simply believe what we feel like believing? I don't consider myself a rationalist or an internet atheist but I regularly ask "where's the evidence?" and do not think I'm being particularly (overly) skeptical to do so. The comment by /u/Magusoflight was clearly an attempt at baiting, and I'd suggest we need far less of that regardless.
Of course not. In these situations I think it's important to make it clear what is being claimed with evidence, and what is being based on speculation, but I don't think speculative claims should be dismissable out of hand. In this case we're talking about Epstein, and no matter how many demands for evidence go unmet, that case stinks and glows from orbit. Maybe it's not Mossad, but someone was backing that guy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link